Hi!
Thanks for asking references to why I find the article erroneous. I can provide them, and will do so, but I'll emphasize that my goal is not to do a hatchet job, or to talk trash etc. on the publication - especially as a whole. On SFI I tried to make it clear that I was only speaking of one article, and the book has many others as well, and should not be judged simply on the basis of one article.
But I can speak about the Fiore article. Here the references are to the version found online here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/FDL_studyguide.v3.htm (which I believe is pretty much similar), for easy reference and because I don't have the book handy at the moment.
To give a few example, on page 1, second paragraph Fiore is said to show combat against multiple opponents, while what he shows is the occassional multiple enemies, who have been agreed to attack one by one according to the text. On the same page, bottom paragraph FIore is referred to as being Bolognese, while in his prologue he himself states his origins otherwise.
On page 2, first paragraph the Pisani-Dossi is said to be partly in Latin verse, while there only is an additional prologue written in Latin.
On page 8, third paragraph the author describes how attackers and defenders are separated in the images by garters and crowns, as are masters and students, but fails to explain the consistent four-step structure of attack, remedy, counter and counter-counter, which is well intended by Fiore since it is explained in the prologue. Same page, last paragraph repeats the reference to multiple opponents.
Page 10, first paragraph has no mention of the four-step structure, where Fiore even defines which counters counter the previous technique and which counter all the techniques of the previous master remedy. The Getty version has many cross-references between different sections, for example references to the plays of dagger in the close-range techniques of the longsword. Same page, second paragraph does not account the primary use of the false edge as a defensive action that is much used in Fiore, for example in the description of porta di ferro mezzana, and in the description of roverso mezzano -strike, and the offensive use described after the rompere di punta -technique. IN the 16th cetury Italian styles the false edge was on occasion used offensively for strikes to the hand (as does Fiore) and otherwise as well, but it's purpose was primarily defensive. Fiore has a full spread displaying various ways of holding the sword.
Still on page 10, third paragraph the author explains how, in the start of the dagger section Fiore shows a man who holds two "arms" to signify disarming, while it is the person holding a dagger that signifies disarms, and the "arms" signify broken arms. The keys signify locks, which Fiore calls keys (chiavi). Last paragraph calls Fiore unique in having a segno page, while it was a construct used in other treatises as well (Vadi being the obvious example).
Page 12, fourth paragraph refers to the 'segno' as being used as a wall or floor target in the 15th century, but I'd like to see the reference for this. As far as I know, Fiore never calls his diagrams 'segni'.
Page 13 shows Posta di Donna taken in three different ways, all of which are physically possible to do, and the weigh shift and turn in between them is described by Fiore as a 'volta stabile', where, while standing still one can play on both sides - essentially a turn of near 180 degrees without taking a step, thus being stable. The blades being flat on to the viewer is of course an artistic consideration, but, going through the treatise I don't remember a single instance where I would have expected the blade to become invisible because of perspective.
Page 16, first paragraph states that Fiore does not place great emphasis on fighting postures, which I don't understand as he begins the both Getty and the Pisani-Dossi with them, and each section includes it's postures before going on to the actual actions. Much of the tactical and technical instruction is also given when describing the postures. On paragraph 2, the author states that Fiore does not show the positions until several pages into the work - again, in Getty and PD they follow immediately after the prologue, which in itself already discusses the positions. I find it interesting that the author states that the explanations of the postures explains briefly 'their obvious use', as some of the explanations are quite specific. I wonder how is it obvious that bicorno is held closed so that it always stands in the middle, that breve is better used in armor and that zzenghiaro never takes a passing step, for example.
Page 16, third paragraph describes difficulty in discerning the poste due to their inconsistent naming. Apart from the donna-like left fenestra in PD and the BnF versions they are in fact rather consistent, and all texts apart from the BnF are in Italian, not Latin. We know from the Getty text, that all guards can do a volta stabile and a mezza volta (a pass), so we can say that all guards can theoretically be taken on both sides.
On page 17, last paragraph Fiore's guards are compared to those of Vadi's with the same name, but with no mention that Vadi's system is not similar to Fiore's, there really is no reason to expect the guards to match either externally or in their supposed use. Same goes on the next page about comparison to Liechtenauer - the styles are not to be expected to be similar even if they cover similar concepts.
Page 18, first paragraph speculates whether the Colpo Villano refers to the attack or the defense. Getty states in clear terms that it is the villano who draws to strike, and the other person waits for him to do so. The PD says that due to the step he finds the attacker uncovered, which does not contradict the other descriptions, it is not the only instance where after blade contact the opponent is found uncovered.
Page 18, paragraph 2 oddly dismisses the volta stabile, which Fiore clearly explains and depicts on the beginning of the sword in two hands -section. The weight pushed back -variant is a feature of his style, and the posta di donna can be seen is both the front and rear-weighted forms, the fenestre are taken in the rear weighted form, dente di zenghiaro can be seen in both, the sword in one hand -position is rear weighted etc.
Page 19, paragraph 2 states strongly that the paired postures are not engaging each other. Interestingly, in the Getty poleaxe section, a pair is said to be facing each other and having often met in combat. This, of course, does not necessarily mean they always were contrasting each other.
Page 20, first paragraph tells how one form of posta di donna resembles the German Zornhut, which, according to my knowledge, only appears in Meyer over a century later. The different versions and variations of one position may well be intentionally done so, perhaps it is meant to be taken in various forms, while maintaining similar function.
Page 21, paragraph 2 seems to mix tutta porta di ferro and porta di ferro mezzana. The position referred to in paragraph 3 displays not a porta di ferro, but the unnamed position of sword held in one hand (which would be coda longa most likely, since on horseback it is named as such, and Morgan suggests this name for a position with same function, albeit not shown). Again the 'multiple opponents' are to come one by one. I'd like to see the said reference in Ms. 3227a, since I can not recall such mention of eisenpforte against multiple opponents, but I might be wrong.
Page 23, last paragraph again disregards the rear-weighted stances.
Page 25, last oaragraph states that all guards can do tutta volta, while Fiore tells us that all guards can only do volta stabile and mezza volta.
Page 26, third paragraph tells that we shouldn't face a dagger in a half-sword guard, while this is exactly what Fiore suggests in the six guards that precede the longsword guards.
Page 27, paragraph 3 talks of blade divisions. The Morgan divides the sword into three sections of different attributes, and the crossings are referred to as happening in the mezza or in the punta of the sword. In the last paragraph it is stated that all parries should be downwards, but this is clearly not the case with the parries done from the low positions. As far as I know, Fiore nowhere describes receiving blows on the flat of the strong of the sword, although, in the Colpo Villano, for example he speaks or catching the strike with the mezza spada. There are strong arguments for the heart of Fiore's style being two-tempi: the remedy is the cross and the hurting follows from there. Not to say that the concept of single-time counters was alien at the time, but the principles of the system are represented in two times.
Page 28, second paragraph describes a defense without stepping as the opponent charges in, I wish there was a reference for this since I can't think of what the author means with this. Anyone?
Page 29, last paragraph renders a better description of the structure of the treatise - a little bit of editing would instantly have bettered the whole article by placing this on the top, where the description fails to convey the structure.
page 31, paragraph 2 compares parry and riposte to cover and hit, but I would say both are describing the same thing. Principally Fiore does a cover, and then a strike. FIore does mention countercuts and counterthrusts textually, but does not necessarily emphasize them. I am not saying Fiore's art is theatrical swordplay, but a cover and then a strike is two times, even if done fluidly and quickly.
So there, I'd like to see the essay revised and perhaps edited a bit, and it would not mislead people. I'm willing to discuss these points further, either here or privately.
Yours,
Ilkka
